I'm a diehard Leftie but my son is going to private school - Will Self

[Swedes]

Discuss

Buyt the problem is the Lada problem, bagsforlife. That is, if there's no choice, there's no incentive except idealism for anyone to make anything work.

That said, I don't think the current probs are anything to do with 'choice'. They are IMHO about attitude.

Totally agree Abbylubber. And tbh us all talking about this is pretty academic, because we are all motivated people who, regardless of the type of school our children go to, are going to do everything we can to maximise their education because it matters to us.

Unfortunately there are plenty of children whose parents don't give a toss about their education. They are unlikely to be on a thread like this. My SIL used to teach in a sink school in London where children were beaten by their parents for doing their homework.

Obviously not all parents who are uninterested in education are that bad, some are just totally apathetic. Such people are sufficiently numerous for the status quo in education to be allowed to continue. There just aren't enough parents kicking up a fuss.

In the face of such apathy I am not prepared to waste my energies tilting at windmills. I'm just going to focus on my family.

Neither of my parents went to school in this country (nor are they from this country) and so they were very unangsty and easy about education. They wouldn't have minded in the least if we hadn't passed the 11+. They weren't great believers in homework either. My father thought education (well books really) should be a joy. I loved my school and I loved most of my teachers (some of them I am still in touch with).

My experience of state education as a parent is that it is joyless.

'Unfortunately there are plenty of children whose parents don't give a toss about their education'

Exactly!!! So isn't up to people who do give a toss about education to try and help them?

It's not those children's fault they are getting a crap education is it? Perhaps if they received a decent education, when they have children they will 'give a toss about their education'.

well swedes i think that is bad luck

I have had a mixture of luck with my dcs schools

their primary is GREAT on paper but not my cup of tea
my dd went to a catholic primary which i adored but we are not catholic so could not get the others in

my sons go to a secondary school which i honestly believe could NOT be better - it is excellent on all fronts and i strugle to find fault

my dd's secondary school equally good on paper but just nothing like the joy of the boys school

its luck of the draw to a degree

we live where we live because of the schools

Oh, bagsforlife, just want to say I totally agree - just because some parents don't care means those of us who do care must try HARDER. But we're not making much progress wiht what we want. I still think it would be fatal to leave it to experts and bureaucrats, and the one size fits all idea will I fear mean the contiuning stranglehold of the above groups. The wish for children to enjoy every second and never to be bored is the enemy, as I see it.

It's fair enough to "not mind the distance" if you have chosen a grammar school, as they typically draw from far and wide - as they should. I travelled 15 miles every day to my grammar school from my small village.

But having it imposed on you by lottery just to attend a comprehensive would be a totally different proposition.

One of the advantages of the state system is that, unless you live somewhere very remote, there is a school within a mile or two of you.

Having flexibility within the system as sinkingfast illustrates is definitely on the right lines - with no stigma attached to being academic or non-academic.

Let's also remember that things have changed in the last 20 years - no longer get "one strike and you're out" at exams. You can go back into education at any time. You can go to university in your thirties or forties. So "failing the 11+", and being "put on the scrap-heap" - the emotive terms that opponents of selective state education bandy around - are no longer totally valid.

I knew someone would say that bagsforlife, hence my statement that I would rather not waste my time tilting at windmills, worrying about other people's children. It is a shame but I have enough on my plate, frankly, trying to get a decent education for my own child.

It isn't a case of fault, and fortunately not all children follow the path their parents set them down. My husband's parents were, and are, completely unmotivated by education. They refused to sign the forms for him to get a grant for uni because they wanted him to get a job. He is doing fine.

Yes, agree AbbyLubber, it's the I'm alright Jack attitude. Those children whose parents don't care are MUCH more in need of a decent education, than those whose parents do care. What is there not to understand about that?

Unfortunately I think people do understand but they don't care. So that's that, as far as they are concerned. And that's where any kind of fairness to those who are most disadvantaged falls apart.

Actually I don't think my "I'm alright Jack| attitude is the real problem.

It's the "stop doing your fucking homework or I'll belt you one, here's a pound get down the chippy for your tea and don't come back till bedtime" attitude that is doing the damage.

If we tried being less inclusive and tried judging and punishing crap parenting a bit more, bleeding heart liberals wouldn't need to get all upset about the underclass. There wouldn't be one.

Direct your energies to the miserable existences of children (rightly) taken into care, who then do even worse and have worse "life outcomes" than they would have done if they had stayed with their feckless parents. Improving social services and care provision would be better.

I had a very dispiriting conversation with some friends when we went to lunch with them yesterday. They are in their 50s - respective children grown and gone and doing well. Partly privately educated. And their entire atitude was that no-one had any responsibility for any child other than their own. Education as a whole, as a societal good, didn't matter. Where does that leave the poor kids whose parents don't care, or do care but don't know what to do about it? Where does that leave the kids who don't care themselves because they'd never seen positive role models. And what society is it going to build, for all the 'well-educated' children to live in as well as everyone else.

I don't like their world.

Education of a reasonable standard should be a given. Parents shouldn't have to worry about it. So that all children have a chance.

Looks like he's recycling old stuff - thought (here) it looked familiar. If he is sending his 11 year old to secondary in September, he's left it a bit late to be looking around schools now. Looks like he's lazy as well as hypocritical...

I think one is as bad as the other georgimama.

Do you? Oh dear, well, hang my head in shame [give a toss emoticon].

So apart from musing on the internet, what are you actually doing about it?

And you bagsforlife? Or AbbyLubber?

"If we tried being less inclusive and tried judging and punishing crap parenting a bit more, bleeding heart liberals wouldn't need to get all upset about the underclass. There wouldn't be one."

History is agin you Georgiemama.

At every other time in history, there has been far less inclusiveness and more judgement and more punishment. And the underclass was massive.

It just wasn't called the underclass.

?

Was that aimed at me georgimama?

There will always be a stigma attached to being non-academic in some circles, and academic in others too I would think. I feel a little like the voice of doom on this thread, but it really is unrealistic to think otherwise.

I don't actually see that so much has changed in the last 20 years actually UQD. There were mature students on my degree course then, and a mature PhD students when I was a postgrad too. My brother went back to college and re-took his A levels to get better grades in order to get to university having made a bit of a balls up first time round.

And I think perhaps one of the reasons why the failing the 11+ and being on the scrapheap thing seems less realistic is because there are fewer grammar school places, even in areas where there are grammar schools, so there is a reasonably, if not completely, comprehensive alternative for children who don't get in. More grammar school places would change that.

I do wonder how much flexibility there could be in a system where children follow academic or non-academic curricula in different buildings, even if they are on the same site. Perhaps it could work, but I need more convincing.

I don't think it is against me.

"It just wasn't called the underclass."

What are you referring to? The working class as it was? By and large law abiding, hard working, industrious and employed. Respectful to the point of being overly deferential to those in positions of authority - teachers, police, clergy, social workers.

There has always been an underclass inclined to petty criminality and fecklessness. They were treated more harshly then than they are now, and whether it improved individuals or not, I'm struggling to see it as a bad thing. At least other people were protected from the effects of their behaviour.

It wasn't common 50 years ago for 15 year olds to knife each other in the streets of London. Anyone who attempts to make out that it was is delusional. My mother grew up in these areas. It didn't happen then.

Yes it was. You think my attitude is actually as damaging as that of parents who don't give a toss about their own children, fine, so what are you actually doing about it? Because opining on the internet isn't helping anyone.

Is that your attitude georgimama? I'm alright jack? I didn't get that impression.

If it is then I'm sorry, and yes I think your attitude is as bad as those feckless parents who don't give a shit.

I am doing my best for my children by sending them to our local school and encouraging them to respect their education and their school, and being the sort of parents the school needs. Ie involved and interested and positive about education. What are you doing?

To go back a few posts, the criticism of Blair for sending his kids to a very sought-after state school was because they were way out of catchment. His local (Islington or Westminster) schools weren't good enough for his kids, so he sent them half way across town, denying kids in Hammersmith & Fulham places at their own local school.

You'd think the PM, the guy ultimately in charge of education, could make a difference to his local school. But no, he just jumped ship.

I can't see how he is a 'die-hard' leftie. A hypocrital, champagne socialist perhaps.

Of course I am doing that (or I will when my son gets there). Like you, for my child's benefit.

The point is, what difference does it make to other children whose parents don't care? The ones who won't let their kids do their homework, the ones who aren't loved, aren't cared for, aren't encouraged.

It makes no difference to them. There is a commendable amount of hand wringing on this thread, but what action?

None.

So my attitude, dreadful as you may think it is, doesn't matter, because none of you are doing anything to help these children either.

Wel, I'm teaching them...